Jurisdictional boundaries
States vary in how each sets the basic playing field for juvenile justice with lower and upper age boundaries. State legislatures further create a range of complex exceptions for transfer to criminal court based on case-by-case, age and offense specifics.
Juvenile defense
Much is at stake in a juvenile court action for delinquency, and successful outcomes are influenced by a family's ability to retain effective counsel early-on and retain them until a permanent resolution to all aspects of the legal matter is resolved.
Racial/ethnic fairness
[1][2][3]
Youth of color are overrepresented in many aspects of the juvenile justice system, from arrest to court referral and confinement. Thus a core requirement of federal juvenile justice policy requires each state to identify where disparities may exist.
Juvenile court
Each state has established a court with juvenile jurisdiction to address the law violating conduct of youth. Explore the structural and procedural differences.
-
Judicial selection
2022
-
Elected
-
Appointed
-
Combination
-
Judicial specialization
2022
-
All mixed case types
-
Mostly mixed
-
Mostly specialized
-
Caseload assignment
2022
-
Mixed assignment methods
-
Individual discretion
-
Statute/State court rules
-
Judicial experience, training, and tools
2022
-
Qualification Requirements
-
Required Annual Training
-
Required Risk/Need Assessments and Pre-Dispositional Reports
-
Juvenile Justice Bench Books
-
Courtroom shackling
2015
Courtroom shackling is restricted by the state court
-
Competency
2015
-
No juvenile standard
-
Juvenile standard is the adult standard
-
Juvenile justice standard exists
-
JJ standard includes developmental immaturity
-
Juvenile justice services
[4]
Every state has a set of laws establishing a system of juvenile courts and a corresponding intervention system commonly referred to as juvenile justice services. The different frameworks effectively create 51 distinctly different juvenile justice systems.
-
Purpose clauses
2016
-
No clause
-
Parens patriae
-
Due process era
-
Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ)
-
Developmental Approach
-
Organization structure
2022
-
Overall
Locally operated
-
Detention
Locally operated
-
Reentry
Locally operated
-
Probation
Locally operated
-
Corrections agency
2015
-
Independent juvenile corrections agency
-
Family/child welfare agency or division
-
Broad human services agency
-
Adult corrections agency or division
-
Intake and diversion
2016
Initial intake and diversion decision is at the discretion of the juvenile court intake officer
and no statutory time limit/s for court diversions exist.
-
Solitary confinement
2016
-
Prohibits punitive confinement
-
Limits punitive confinement
-
No limits on punitive confinement
-
Did not respond
-
Release decision
2016
-
Agency
-
Court
-
Parole board
-
Agency and court
-
Risk assessment
2020
-
Statewide uniform assessment
-
Layered/regional assessment
-
Locally administered assessment
-
Sex offense registry
2015
-
Risk instruments
2017
-
Statute or agency policy
-
Agency recommended
No statewide tool in use
-
Mental health screening
2014
Required in the following services:
-
Secure detention
-
Probation
-
Corrections
-
EBP support center
2014
Does not have a support center or collaboratives dedicated to coordinating activities around implementing, evaluating, and sustaining EBPs.
-
Recidivism indicators 2016
- Study populations: Placement
- Re-offense events: Court action
- Follow-up periods: 12 months with adult systems reporting
-
Status offense issues
A wide range of non-criminal behaviors by youth are grouped as status offenses. Actions such as truancy, running away or acting stubborn can thrust an adolescent into formal juvenile court actions for services and safety but also where their liberty may be at-risk.
-
Labeling 2015
-
In need of aid, assistance, or care
-
In need of services
-
In need of supervision
-
Unruly
-
Status offender
-
Age boundaries 2016
- Status offense jurisdiction: Up through 17 years old. (lower age not specified)
- Delinquency jurisdiction: Up through 17 years old. (lower age not specified)
-
Reported data
-
Systems integration
[5][6]
Youth involved in more than one system require special attention and coordination. State and local policy-makers are increasingly sharing data concerning dual status youth and establishing a wide range of exciting coordination models.
-
Agency integration 2016
One or all are decentralized
-
State coordination 2014
-
Data sharing
-
Committees or advisory groups
-
Formal interagency MOUs
-
Informal interagency agreements
-
Statute and/or court rules
-
Reported data
-
State resources
Juvenile justice leadership
Other stakeholders
Policy (legal) research
Read more »
